I don't understand.

When Nader joins the race, more people vote for Bush in the national poll. 48 without him, 49 with him. That shouldn't make a difference.

One percent were either Kerry supporters or undecided without Nader. This one percent of the voters are like, "Nader's running? Well, then, I'm switching to Bush!"

I DON'T GET IT. IS THIS A JOKE?

Either the poll is wack or the sample has inconsistent preferences.

What I don't get is how mad Alarming News gets when I just post polling information.

IS THIS SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME.

Ace, I don't understand the Alarming News reference-sorry.

I asked a political science guy, who works for a major political science company, we're talking Fortune 500, what could explain that. I'm not sure I understand his reply:

"So Nader is only included when he's actually on
the ballot in your state, so my guess is that these are sub-samples (i.e.,
Bush only has 48% support in Nader states, 49% in non-Nader states, so Bush
is slightly more popular in non-Nader states due to, for example, the fact
that Nader's not on the ballot in the South). Or possibly that Nader manages
to draw ~1% from both candidates (note Kerry and Bush are one point higher
in the second item). My guess is the former."

Oh, Alarming News is another blog that says it hates me because I post either encouraging or discouraging polls.

I think it all comes down to Ohio. Win there, and take the entire Viking-tamale.